A Publication of
the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty

2001’s Most Unlikely Discoveries

December 30, 2001

It was only a matter of time before a liberal publication would attempt
to defend Bill Clinton’s abysmal record on fighting terrorism. Since Sept.
11, the evidence of incompetence and lost opportunities has been stacked
high. Early attempts to lay the blame at the feet of the FBI and CIA have
failed, as a furious population surmised that behind all activities of
highly funded intelligence agencies is that indispensable element most
call "leadership."

So I was not surprised to see back-to-back front-page articles in The
Washington Post recently, which could only have been conceived and executed
after significant arm-twisting by remnants of the disgraced Clinton administration.
What was especially galling was the label the Post chose to describe eight
years of impotent "activity" masquerading as response to real
terrorist threats against our nation. The Post called Clinton’s fiddling,
"Clinton’s War on Terrorism."

When I first read the headline containing this outrage, I laughed. After
that, I just got angry. There was no "Clinton War on Terrorism!"
But, there were many "wars" waged by our former commander in
chief. There was the war on decency. There was the war on our military,
when Clinton and his cronies and croni-ettes attempted to feminize our
armed forces, and coerce our warriors into accepting both women and men
with conflicting gender preferences.

Then, there were the wars on drug companies, and doctors, and "Big
Tobacco" and "Microsoft." And, who will ever forget the
enormous resources brought to bear against the "Radical Right,"
in the wake of the Republican take-over of Congress in 1994? Crazy Timothy
McVeigh gave Clinton and the Democratic Party a perfect excuse to investigate
the heck out of a "Vast Right Wing" which Clinton described
as the biggest danger to American national security ever.

Years later, what does the U.S. government have to show for the tremendous
investment of resources used to identify, catalogue and maintain FBI files
on thousands of law-abiding, decent Americans who simply loved their Constitution
and Bill of Rights? Exactly nothing! Clinton perceived a "right-wing
threat" for exactly what it was  a true national movement to
oust a disgusting, failed and reckless leader from national office.

The "right" was a political threat of the highest order, and
Bill Clinton understood the gravity of that threat. Meanwhile, he banished
the CIA director from the White House, and made it clear he had no real
interest in foreign affairs. The joke going around the White House at
the time when a nut crashed a plane onto the South Lawn, was that the
pilot was CIA Director Woolsey, trying to get an appointment with the
president.

And while hundreds, maybe thousands of FBI agents were used to probe
the activities of "home-grown terrorists" from the "right,"
how many real terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden were able to set up deadly
cells for future attacks?

Informed citizens know all of this, and more, and will not be fooled
by the attempts made by the Washington Post, or any other of Clinton’s
liberal media friends to airbrush history.

Richard Cohen, a particularly obnoxious lefty who writes on a regular
basis for the Post, recently claimed the reason Clinton could not wage
an effective war against Osama bin Laden was because he was too busy waging
war with his wife, with Kenneth Starr, Bob Barr, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp,
Monica Lewinsky, Cathleen Wiley, the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,"
and ... well, you get the picture.

The reason, according to Cohen, that we were attacked on Sept. 11, is
because decent Americans complained loudly about Bill Clinton’s disgusting
conduct performed on our White House Oval Office rug with a young woman
 a government employee  barely capable of making good decisions
about activities most Americans would find shameful and beneath contempt.
Clinton’s attempts to hide this conduct caused one of the most damaging
insults to the minds of our nation’s youth, as they were forced to watch
and listen to a president attempt to explain what sex isn’t, and what
it "is."

Our nation was also humiliated to learn that a president would lie under
oath to save his own political skin. Even the hated Nixon never did that.

And Cohen contends that all of this is "our" fault, not Clinton’s.

In the spirit of the holiday season, I’ve prepared a list of the "Ten
Most Unlikely Discoveries" of the past year. I would invite readers
of this column to prepare their own examples, then forward them to the
Internet address provided below. After a thorough review by a qualified
panel of  well, me  the readers’ "Best Ten" unlikely
discoveries will be posted in a future column. Maybe by then, the Washington
Post will give up attempts to rewrite history, but I doubt that very much.

Gary Aldrich’s list of "The Most Unlikely Discoveries of 2001,"
in no particular order: